34 Steven D. Fraade
the rabbinic emphasis on the orality of rabbinic discourse, in contrast to
the writtenness of Scripture? We shall examine noteworthy passages from
classical rabbinic literature (Oral Torah) that thematize (and in some cases
problematize) the nature of that Torah, especially in relation to its written
sibling, as well as to the social, pedagogical context of their dual recitals.
Contrary to my usual practice of working through such sources from earli-
est to latest in chronological sequence, so as to discern historical develop-
ment, I shall begin with later, more conceptually developed traditions and
work my way back to the earliest textual expressions. Given the limits of
space, my aim is to highlight some salient aspects of the rabbinic concept
of Written and Oral Torahs, and thereby rabbinic conceptions of Scripture
and revelation.
A Late Story of Rabbinic Origins
Although it is impossible to determine with any certainty whether the
“myth” of the Oral Torah goes back to prerabbinic (Pharisaic) times, the
following story (which in its extant form dates to a late period in the rab-
binic era) from the Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan is a good indication
of how foundational that idea was to become:3
What was the impatience of Shammai the Elder? Th ey said: A story [is
told] about a certain man who stood before Shammai, saying to him, “My
master, how many Torahs do you [plural] have?” 4 [Shammai] said to him,
“Two, one written and one oral.” [Th e man] said to him, “With respect to
the written one I believe you, but with respect to the oral one I do not be-
lieve you.” [Shammai] rebuked him and angrily removed him.
He came before Hillel, saying to him, “My master, how many Torahs were
given?” [Hillel] said to him, “Two, one written and one oral.” [Th e man] said
to him, “With respect to the written one I believe you, but with respect to
the oral one I do not believe you.” [Hillel] said to him, “My son, have a seat.”
He wrote out for him the alphabet. [Pointing to the fi rst letter,] he said
to him, “What is this?” [Th e man] said to him, “It is an aleph.” [Hillel] said
to him, “Th is is not an aleph but a bet.” [Pointing to the second letter,] he
said to him, “What is this?” [Th e man] said, “It is a bet.” “ Th is is not a bet,”
said [Hillel], “but a gimmel.” [Hillel] said to him, “How do you know that
this is an aleph, and this is a bet, and this is a gimmel? Only because our
earliest ancestors have passed it on to us that this is an aleph, and this is